I quite like those 8 Rules, particularly No.4 which is an excellent guide.

If I were to sum up, then your style of team selection seems like a post-season Award Ceremony where the emphasis is on excellence and accrued merit.

Yes that's a good summary and for me its logical to treat it like a post season award ceremony, because I am picking the best performed Test players in the history of Test Cricket, not selecting a team for an up and coming match, because that's not a possibility. Obviously it can be fun to dream about the XI playing a second XI or something, but still I am always rewarding the best performers.

Originally Posted by kyear2

Like 3-7, for No. 3 though would add that I prefer the match winners over the primarily stoic match savers. I perfer agressive batsmen and attacking bowlers who can take over and win a match and constanly aplly pressure to the opposition. Especially love being at your best againts the best and performing equally well at home and abroad especially the bolwers who are the match winners.

CW seems not to place a lot of emphasis on being the best in the World, as Hadlee is consistently in the contention for the first XI despite never being the best bowler in the world, and not regarded among the very best as I have never seen him listed in anyone's (historians, past players, commentators, publications ect) AT XI except for those on CW who prefer to have a team that bats to #11 at the expense of the actual bowling attack.

I added match saver last minute, just because it definitely is important and it doesn't necessarily mean 60 (246) you can still save a match by making a 120 (165). Overall yes, I prefer match winners but I acknowledge that it was easier for a Ricky Ponting to be a match winner than it was for an Andy Flower.

Re: Hadlee that is interesting, because he definitely was rated very highly in Australia and obviously New Zealand. i decided to include Hadlee in my ATG team ahead of Imran just because I felt Hadlee's bowling was just a fraction better and consistent.

According the ICC ratings system, I think Hadlee spent more of the '80s ranked as the no.1 bowler in the world than anyone else did. Which, when you consider his competition at the time, is some effort. The idea that he was "never the best bowler in the world" at any point in his career is cobblers.

According the ICC ratings system, I think Hadlee spent more of the '80s ranked as the no.1 bowler in the world than anyone else did. Which, when you consider his competition at the time, is some effort. The idea that he was "never the best bowler in the world" at any point in his career is cobblers.

WARNING: Temporarily going off topic.

By his own admission Richard Hadlee was only ever an imitation of Dennis Lillee . And when Lillee reached the end of career then Malcolm Marshall took over the mantle of greatest fast bowler of his era. So I'm with kyear on this issue.

By his own admission Richard Hadlee was only ever an imitation of Dennis Lillee . And when Lillee reached the end of career then Malcolm Marshall took over the mantle of greatest fast bowler of his era. So I'm with kyear on this issue.

By his own admission Richard Hadlee was only ever an imitation of Dennis Lillee . And when Lillee reached the end of career then Malcolm Marshall took over the mantle of greatest fast bowler of his era. So I'm with kyear on this issue.

It's utterly irrelevant as to whether he was inspired by or imitated Lillee. The point is the ludicrous assertion that he was unequivocally "never" the best bowler in the world and doesn't even belong in the discussion alongside the likes of Marshall, McGrath, Lillee et al, when IMO he most certainly does.

That's all I have to say on the matter, because I know how these things go from here on.

And none of those line-ups are tainted by their own inherent biases, no doubt. And of course, if you were to find the doyen on New Zealand cricket, he wouldn't name Hadlee ahead of some of those bowlers in those line-ups?

Pick and choose all you like, it doesn't make an inherently biased viewpoint any less biased.

>>>>>>WHHOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHH>>>>>>Fascist Dictator of the Heath Davis Appreciation SocietySupporting Petone's Finest since the very start - Iain O'Brien
Adam Wheater - Another batsman off the Essex production line
Also Supporting the All Time #1 Batsman of All Time Ever - Jacques Kallis and the much maligned Peter Siddle.

By his own admission Richard Hadlee was only ever an imitation of Dennis Lillee . And when Lillee reached the end of career then Malcolm Marshall took over the mantle of greatest fast bowler of his era. So I'm with kyear on this issue.

Just because someone said something doesn't mean it's true. If Sachin said Ponting is better than him would it make it true? No, it wouldn't, it would still be very debateable.

But then I'm pretty sure you're the guy who thinks Barry Richards is the bees knees of test cricket because another batsman said so.

Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed

And none of those line-ups are tainted by their own inherent biases, no doubt. And of course, if you were to find the doyen on New Zealand cricket, he wouldn't name Hadlee ahead of some of those bowlers in those line-ups?

Pick and choose all you like, it doesn't make an inherently biased viewpoint any less biased.

What this guy said.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.

1 Test performances count. 99% of the cricketers career should only focus on Test Cricket and I would say 100% in the current era.

2 To further add to number 1, none of this 4 Test career bull****. Richards Test career lasted under 50 days, he was still on his probation period. Realistically nowadays no one should make the team unless they play 70 Tests and that number should probably be about 80 Tests for Cricketers from Australia and England where Tests occur more frequently. Obviously that number is too high for Cricketers who retired 30+ years ago, so I use I guess reluctantly 20 Tests as an absolute bare minimum.

4 You need to be regarded as the best player in the world at your discipline at a particular time, unless there is a freak player like Bradman ahead of you and you are quite close.

5 A great average and overall record against the top tier teams are required. What great is depends on the era.

6 You have to like the guy and his style or story. Its your team after all.

7 Performances away from home count, anyone with a weak record away is going to be considered a home track bully. The ability to perform in different conditions is what Test Cricket is all about.

8 Dates must be in crowded public places. You want romance? Read a book.

8/9. Personal testimonies and assessments by expert co-players and umpires should be given due credit. Especially for players who have played fewer Test matches, or for pre-WWII players because film footage was either poor or unavailable.

8/9. Personal testimonies and assessments by expert co-players and umpires should be given due credit. Especially for players who have played fewer Test matches, or for pre-WWII players because film footage was either poor or unavailable.

Yeah. I like this idea. I can selectively choose testimony from Trevor Bailey to support my selection of any player from Essex. Makes my life a lot easier, as my Garnham by osmosis campaign seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

8/9. Personal testimonies and assessments by expert co-players and umpires should be given due credit. Especially for players who have played fewer Test matches, or for pre-WWII players because film footage was either poor or unavailable.

Fair enough. Then that would give some latitude to players like Graeme Pollock (I won't mention the other bloke) who played fewer Tests than many other greats (23 is not a lot), and Sydney Barnes who we can never watch in action apart from a dubious 10 second video.

By his own admission Richard Hadlee was only ever an imitation of Dennis Lillee . And when Lillee reached the end of career then Malcolm Marshall took over the mantle of greatest fast bowler of his era. So I'm with kyear on this issue.

I don't think Hadlee's opinions on his own ability are really very much help - it's a bit like me, being an essentially self-effacing individual, asserting that I am the worst lawyer who has ever been in a courtroom, 'cos even I know, itbt, that already this decade there have been possibly as many as half a dozen worse than me